096-NLR-NLR-V-03-MUDALIHAMI-v.-BANDIRALA.pdf
( 209 )
MUDALIHAMI v. BANDIRALA.
1898.
March. 4•
0. R., MaUde, 1,763.
Kandyan Law—Acquired property—Inheritance—Property purchasedby son from father.
P’s father sold and transferred certain lands to P. P diedintestate, leaving him surviving a paternal aunt and a maternaluncle—Held, that under the Kandyan Law the lands were theacquired property of P, and as such devolved, unlike ancestralparaveni property, oh the maternal uncle.
HIS was an action in ejectment and for a declaration of title to
certain lands which the plaintiff, a Kandyan, claimed as theuncle and only living heir of one Punchirala, who was admittedby the defendants to be the owner of the lands in dispute.
The issues framed were: (1) Is plaintiff the brother of PunchiMenika, the mother of Punchirala ? (2), Is the third defendant asister of Bandirala, who is the father of Punchirala ? (3) Is firstdefendant entitled to the land as an associated husband (withBandirala) of Punchi Menika, whose son was Punchirala ? And
Has any title passed to second defendant by the alleged saleto him by first defendant ?
After evidence heard, the Commissioner (Mr. Panabokke)dismissed plaintiff’s case by the following judgment:—
“ This is a pure case of Kandyan Law. The issue presented“ to the Court for decision is shortly, whether the property of an“intestate Kandyan who died childless goes to his mother’s or“ father’s relations.
“As the properly in question has descended ‘from the father“ and not the mother, it is clear that it must go to the paternal“ aunt of the deceased and not to his maternal uncle, who is“plaintiff in this case. The case reported on 3 S. C. C. of
“ 12th July, 1878, is exactly in point.
Vol. m.
12(66)29
( 210 )
1898.March 4.
The first defendant in this case has no right whatever to. the“ land, nor has the second, who chums to derive his title under“ the first. 1 hold the first and second issues proved, namely,
“ that plaintiff is brother of Punchi Monika, and that Kiri Monika.
“ is sister of Bandirala.
“ I have already decided the other two issues.
“ I therefore dismiss the claims of the plaintiff, and give judgment“ for the lands for Kiri Menika, with costs. Plaintiff and '“ first and second defendant will bear their own costs.”
Plaintiff appealed.
Bawa, for appellant.
Sampayo, for respondent.
4th March, 1898. Bonseb, C.J.—
This is a dispute between the paternal aunt and the maternaluncle of one Punchirala (who died intestate) as to the right ofinheritance, to his landed property.
That question depends on another question as to whether thelanded property is acquired property, or is what is called ancestralparaveni property. If it is ancestral paraveni property, thepaternal aunt is entitled to it, because, according to KandyanLaw, paternal property reverts to the paternal side and maternalproperty to the maternal side ; but if it was acquired property, thematernal uncle would be entitled to succeed. Sawer (page 13) .is the authority for that proposition. I am of opinion that thiswas acquired property of Punchirala. It is stated in the pleadingsand not denied that Punchirala’s father sold and transferred the
i
said lands to his son Punchirala. Under these circumstances itseems impossible to hold that this was not acquired property.
It is not necessary to decide whether the result would havebeen the same if Punchirala had acquired the property bydonation from his father. It was argued that acquired propertymeans property acquired in any way except by descent, and thatthe word “ acquired ” is equivalent to the English term “ purchase ”in its legal signification.
Mr. Justice Grenier in Tennekoongedera Ukkurala v. Samara-ainghe William J'iUekeratne (5 S. C. C. 47) seems to have beenof that opinion, but, as I said before, it is not necessary to decidethat question now.
The decree will be reversed, and it will be declared that thematernal uncle is entitled to succeed. He will have his costs.